3 Things I Learned in Grad School This Week - Sept 17 2016

This week I read some pretty heavy conservation theory. I want to share that but haven’t fully processed it yet so I don’t feel like I can share it fully. I did learn a few plants though. Beautiful flowers. Those, Constraint Theory, and Keystone Threats. 

Plants
This week I learned new plants. I actually learned about 50 but I remember about 7 and am only sharing these three crazy looking, yet extremely common flowers to this area. These three plants are native and so common that they are found all through the Americas and even into Europe and Africa. I have never even heard of the Families though! The California Floristic Province contains one of the most biodiverse floral regions and I grew up 10 miles from the most biodiverse spots of that area as it is where the CFP, the Sonoran Desert Province, the Colorado Desert subregion, and the Mojave Desert Province all meet. And plants are my thing – more than birds or reptiles or whatever. Sometimes I let my hubris get a hold of me and am surprised when I am surprised about things I should know. I should know common plants in North America. I should at the very least know common families in North America. I suppose the journey of the naturalist is never-ending and I am grateful for that.
​
The three that I learned are beautiful and infinitely strange. Below are their common and latin names as well as a couple photos I pulled from the internet:

Orange Jewelweed – Impatiens capensis

Erect Dayflower – Commelina erecta

Hairy Spiderwort – Tradescantia hirsuticaulis

Keystone Threats
Instead of Keystone Species, which are species in an ecosystem that have a disproportionate effect on the system, one of my advisors edited a book and in it he identifies the Keystone Threats idea in one of his chapters. This idea is similar to EO Wilson’s biodiversity threats of HIPPO (human development, invasive species, human population, pollution, and overharvesting); guns, nets, and bulldozers from the new Nature article(https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/biggest-threats-biodiversity-guns-nets-bulldozers); and somewhat related to the Stockholm Resilience Center’s 9 Planetary Boundaries.  Focusing on the threats to a particular habitat, Dr. Baldwin shows that there are particular threats that when removed assuage disproportionately the impact on the habitat. It’s like the Keystone Species Theory in reverse: when you add wolves back to the Yellowstone habitat you get elk moving which gets trees growing again and rivers changing course.

I suppose that a corollary to this could be two impacts related to Keystone Species: Trophic Cascades and Mesopredator Release. Trophic Cascades are basically top-down (like the wolf example above) or bottom-up as in when you remove the primary producer (plants, algae, etc) that herbivores feed on. Mesopredator release is when mid-level predators are allowed to run rampant because they have nothing keeping them in check (i.e. a wolf outcompeting and predating upon coyotes or foxes). Mesopredator release has been theorized as one of the drivers for an inordinate impact upon bird, rodent, and small mammal populations. The idea is that while wolves don’t eat bird eggs, raccoons do and if wolves keep their populations in check then birds can have a more robust population. Keystone threats might work indirectly in such a way.

The biggest threat is development. Once you build a strip mall that land is gone forever and the open space adjacent to it is now affected by the human presence. I would imagine that removing the development (or threat of such) reclaims the land, reduces edge effects, allows species that are less reclusive to pioneer away from the Core, and thereby reducing pressure on other species. In essence, it’s a pressure release valve allowing all species more space and agency. This inordinate removal of pressure is greater and has more indirect impacts than say noise pollution from a nearby airport or snowmobile access. The latter are both legitimate threats that require attention but far less a priority than a Keystone Threat.

Constraints Theory
Discussing what motivates people to conduct recreation (of any kind - adventure backpacking to table tennis), my professor discussed Constraint Theory. This theory identifies three basic constraints to participation:

• intrapersonal constraints – fear, motivation, lack of skill,
• interpersonal constraints – not knowing anyone, not having right socialization, etc
• structural constraints – the real-world ability to do something doesn’t occur; structural barriers keeping you from engagement

Basically, this is a strategy to organize barriers and identify specifically what discourages engagement. I am a big believer in “what gets measured can be managed” and this is the measurement part of that. Once you identify the Constraints you then apply the appropriate methods for removing those restraints. Where this gets fun is when one constraint is masked as another or so heavily dependent linearly on one constraint that the other constraints fall away. An example would be someone not feeling confident in their abilities to swim but really they just don’t have the money to get to the pool enough to practice. Once you remove that constraint by providing free swim class afterschool or a free bus route to the beach, the perceived intrapersonal fear can fall away and the challenge looks exciting.
 
Technically, as it relates to leisure, this is called the Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints. When I was trying to do my own research I looked up Constraints Theory and it, apparently, is its own legitimate theory in Industrial Management. I found this equally as interesting as it provides a terrific framework to not just expect constraints (in commercial production) but also a very useful strategy to then adaptively manage a complex situation to still achieve successful metrics.